Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 146972 2008-01-29	B & I REALTY CO. v. TEODORO CASPE and PURIFICACION AGUILAR CASPE CORONA, J.
On one hand, the CA erred when it held that there was no waiver of the defense of prescription even if it was invoked only in the answer and in the motion to set case for hearing on the affirmative defenses, and not in the motion to dismiss, because it should have been raised at the earliest possible time, in this case, in the motion to dismiss. Thus, it was deemed waived in accordance with the "omnibus motion rule."[12]
	AM No. P-04-1920 2007-08-17	SPS. NORMANDY AND RUTH BAUTISTA v. ERNESTO L. SULA CARPIO, J.
Conformably, a defendant in a replevin suit may demand the return of possession of the property replevined by filing a redelivery bond executed to the plaintiff in double the value of the property as stated in the plaintiff's affidavit within the period specified in Sections 5 and 6.[42] Under Section 6, the vehicle shall be delivered to Glor only under the following instances: If within five days after the taking of the vehicle, complainants do not object to the sufficiency of the bond or of the surety or sureties thereon;